Jump to content

Welcome to Mariner Central
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

2010 MCKL Rule Change Vote (#2) - PASSED


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#1
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
For this vote, please either A.) declare your vote in the replies to this thread, or B.) PM your vote to me if you wish to keep your vote anonymous. (In that case, I will record your vote, but will not reveal its effect until the voting is done. You may change your vote at any time up until the vote is declared final, using either of these methods. If anonymous votes are questioned, TheZenador will confirm them privately).

Rule Change Proposal:

Official proposal:
- PART A: that the league setting "New players become available" be changed from 'As soon as Yahoo! adds them' to 'Wait until called up to Majors'.
- PART B: that waiver position, from this season forward, be carried over from year to year. Example: the final waiver positions from 2010 will be the initial waiver positions for 2011, except where affected by any trading of waiver positions.
- PART C: that initial waiver positions for the 2010 season will be chosen at random. This will be done, if possible, by a neutral party; if this is not possible in a timely manner, TheZenador or KingCorran will provide a fair random draw. Lonnie and/or Dr. Detecto (at minimum) will be approached to see if one is willing to provide this service.
- PART D: that the prior proposal - #1 for the 2010 offseason, consisting solely of PART A of this proposal - be rejected (as a separate proposal from this one).

Reasoning:
- All my reasoning from the original proposal thread applies.
- In short, Part A makes the waiver pick more interesting again by making it more powerful... exactly the way it's always been except for last year (2009). It becomes a valuable part of the long-term game rather than an afterthought.
- Part B means that long-term strategy for the waiver position increases. One may wait perhaps 3-4 years to get a #1 pick and a top super-prospect... settle for more frequent top prospects in the 5-10 range... or spend picks regularly to pick up minor players. Regardless, everyone gets equal access to top waiver picks over time, regardless of their performance in the league.
- Part B also means that top teams are actually weakened slightly by this proposal, and weak teams strengthened. Top teams no longer automatically get the strengthened high waiver picks; mid-rank and lower-rank teams now have an equal chance to start with them in any given season. This proposal definitely aids the lower and mid-level teams at the expense of the higher-ranked teams from the previous year.
- Part C removes this extra initial power from automatically going to the 2009 top finishers - a concern in the prior proposal. The same league-balancing concept applies in the first year as in future years, because initial position is randomly selected by a non-involved party. Everyone has a chance at #1 this year. (This is more fair than using 2009 final waiver positions, because those positions were not intended to be carried over to 2010... and that consequence should be known when it applies).
- Part D is simply cleanup - gets rid of the prior unresolved proposal in an official manner if this proposal passes. (If this proposal does not pass, that one will still be open).

Thanks for your consideration! Votes made on this full proposal in the last thread are included automatically, but votes that were only on the partial original proposal are not (as this is an entirely different proposal when the two ideas are combined). VOTE NOW! :)

---

VOTE TALLY:

13 votes for, 3 votes against (14 votes required for passage by 2/3 majority)
0 anonymous votes, 4 not yet voted (non-votes count as 'no' votes in final tally)

KingCorran - votes FOR
DocMilo - votes AGAINST
55panhead - votes FOR
Idahomariner - votes FOR
TheZenador - votes FOR
CoastieM - votes FOR
Gomez - votes FOR
cbo24663 - votes FOR
Hotwheelz - votes FOR
kirkdog77 - votes AGAINST
baseballbond - votes FOR
MarinerPride - votes AGAINST
MajorMajor - votes FOR
phredmojo
jaybo24663
Stampi - votes FOR
hdboc - votes FOR
jj-malaysia
CrustyJuggler - votes FOR
Dag Gummit
  • 0

#2
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
KNOWN VOTES (prior to any replies in this thread):

KingCorran (votes FOR - proposal co-developer)
55panhead (votes FOR - from prior thread, proposal co-developer)
TheZenador (votes FOR - from prior thread)
hdboc (votes FOR - from non-anonymous PM to KingCorran)
  • 0

#3
DocMilo

DocMilo

    Tequila Sunriser

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tukwila, WA
Nay. Nay. Nay. Nay.
I will vote to close prospects on Yahoo only if waivers go to the last place teams every year.
  • 0

#4
Idahomariner

Idahomariner
  • Line Drive Boosters
  • 950 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thousand Oaks, CA
For
  • 0

#5
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA

Nay. Nay. Nay. Nay.
I will vote to close prospects on Yahoo only if waivers go to the last place teams every year.


That still only counts as one vote. :D

VOTE, MCKLers! Vote, vote, vote!!! :beee:
  • 0

#6
CrustyJuggler

CrustyJuggler
  • Members
  • 2,256 posts
The only piece of the proposal that isn't jiving with me is the random waiver order. If this was a complete redraft without keepers it would be ideal. But fact is we have a built in hierarchy of good teams and bad teams. I personally think the bad teams should have first crack in waivers if prospect hoarding isn't going to be allowed.

If this is the final proposal, I'll have to vote nay.

Edited by CrustyJuggler, 02 March 2010 - 06:33 PM.

  • 0

#7
MarinerPride

MarinerPride
  • Members
  • 156 posts
No. I always thought the old system was just fine.
  • 0

#8
DocMilo

DocMilo

    Tequila Sunriser

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tukwila, WA
I propose:
A) Waiver Wire closed to non-MLB roster prospects to improve the value of the waiver.
:beee: Waiver Wire is reverse order of previous year finish with bottom 3 determined by lottery to dissuade tanking a season.

Simple. Closed waiver means more prospects will be coming thru it and thus higer value and a reverse order to help the bottom teams in the league.

All in favor, reply with an Oogly Boogly!

Oogly Boogly
  • 0

#9
Idahomariner

Idahomariner
  • Line Drive Boosters
  • 950 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thousand Oaks, CA
You guys do realize that if you vote no on this proposal that the #1 team from the previous season will still get the #1 waiver wire priority right? The rule cant change until it passes with 14 votes, so if this rule fails then someone else will still have to propose a new rule that will get passed. So if you think a random pick of waiver wire priority is a step up from the best teams getting the best waiver wire priority you really should vote yes. If you think the way it is right now you should vote no.

Just thought I would point that out.
  • 0

#10
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA

The only piece of the proposal that isn't jiving with me is the random waiver order. If this was a complete redraft without keepers it would be ideal. But fact is we have a built in hierarchy of good teams and bad teams. I personally think the bad teams should have first crack in waivers if prospect hoarding isn't going to be allowed.


I agree with IM's statement, CJ. If you guys think there's a problem with the current system's ordering of talent, then this is at least a step in the right direction for you. I imagine you'd have to pass something like this before some of us would even consider giving the top (powerful) waiver positions to the lower-end teams along with the top first-round picks... because no-one's previously complained about the current system being unbalanced in the 5 years we've run this league. Isn't it better to give the picks away at random rather than to give them to the top teams? And then you can support that, even if it doesn't go as far as you'd like in this step.

After all, under this proposal... the randomness is just the initial state for the system. After this season starts, people have more direct control over when their waiver pick will become the best... they can choose to spend it this year, or save it for future years.

No. I always thought the old system was just fine.


The problem is that the old system was eliminated after the 2008 season. We don't have the option to go back to it. In 2009, we had to choose between two alternative systems... and we ended up arbitrarily choosing the one that was least like the old system. I think we chose wrongly... and I don't remember the league voting on which system to go to. If you want the old system back, my original proposal is the most similar possibility . (I agree, by the way. If it were an option, I'd tell Yahoo! to just undo their micromanagement and bring the old system back... it worked just fine, quirks and all).
  • 0

#11
Idahomariner

Idahomariner
  • Line Drive Boosters
  • 950 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thousand Oaks, CA
Also I would like to point out that this is not a league of haves and have nots. It changes dramatically season to season.

My keepers last year were (None of which are currently on my team)
Soriano
Price
Rollins
Mauer
Morneau
Victorino

While most of those are still keeper level, Soriano, Victorino, Price, and Rollins have all seen their value go down. I drafted Wainwright, Greinke, and Reynolds during the draft and that is where I gained my momentum last year. I didnt have a top pick or a high waiver priority (in fact I dont think I got anyone of note off the waiver wire), just got lucky on some picks that allowed me to gain some depth on my team. Things change quickly year to year.

Edited by Idahomariner, 03 March 2010 - 09:50 AM.

  • 0

#12
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
NO one got anyone of note on the waiver wire. I think. :P That's my whole point in having these discussions! :D
  • 0

#13
DocMilo

DocMilo

    Tequila Sunriser

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tukwila, WA

You guys do realize that if you vote no on this proposal that the #1 team from the previous season will still get the #1 waiver wire priority right? The rule cant change until it passes with 14 votes, so if this rule fails then someone else will still have to propose a new rule that will get passed. So if you think a random pick of waiver wire priority is a step up from the best teams getting the best waiver wire priority you really should vote yes. If you think the way it is right now you should vote no.

Just thought I would point that out.

Give me something worth voting for and I will vote "Yes". There really is no need to complicate things... random waiver pick? Make it simple. Give it one year KC and see how it works. Reverse order waiver is what it will cost for me to vote "Yes" on shutting out the prospects from the data base. If you don't like the way it works, we can change again next year and I'll follow your lead KC.

Yes, I know this was a reply to your post IM... just the proposal was written up by KC... so.
  • 0

#14
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA

Give me something worth voting for and I will vote "Yes". There really is no need to complicate things... random waiver pick? Make it simple. Give it one year KC and see how it works. Reverse order waiver is what it will cost for me to vote "Yes" on shutting out the prospects from the data base. If you don't like the way it works, we can change again next year and I'll follow your lead KC.

Yes, I know this was a reply to your post IM... just the proposal was written up by KC... so.


Doc,

If we reverse the waiver order... I don't want to delay the prospects from entering the database. I view that as far too much power to the lower-end teams (1-5), and at the cost of the middle-rank teams even more than the high-rank teams. I don't want to hand the last place team both Strasberg AND Heyward. #2 should have a shot at one of those guys, and the trickledown effect takes away good talent that teams 7-13 would have acquired, through one system or the other.

Also, I think at this point that if we did that, it would cost several of the other current 'Yes' votes if that's the requirement to change your 'No' to a 'Yes'. We'd move further away from consensus, rather than closer to it.

---

Gah. I think league rules should force managers to vote, one way or another. :D
  • 0

#15
DocMilo

DocMilo

    Tequila Sunriser

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tukwila, WA

I don't want to hand the last place team both Strasberg AND Heyward.

Why not? If you want one of them... make a deal. Also, you can do a lottery on the bottom 3 or 5 and reverse the order on the bottom 3 or 5 on the waiver wire. I don't care how it's done, I just think the bottom teams need first access to the better prospects.

Edited by DocMilo, 03 March 2010 - 10:29 AM.

  • 0

#16
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA

Why not? If you want one of them... make a deal. Also, you can do a lottery on the bottom 3 or 5 and reverse the order on the bottom 3 or 5 on the waiver wire. I don't care how it's done, I just think the bottom teams need first access to the better prospects.


It's not about who *I* get. If the bottom team gets the best non-kept player AND the best prospect every year... that's a LOT of compensatory talent for being last at the expense of mid-level teams. If that team gets Strasberg AND Heyward, and trades one of them away... they still get the huge amount of extra talent for free, just in a different form.

And a lottery - while an interesting idea, on that still adds another layer of complexity to the process every year - wouldn't address my personal concern about stacking in favor of the bottom 5 teams. Not unless you included all 14 'non-playoff' teams in the lottery and drew 3 for the top 3 picks. It's just not worth doing something like that for one year, if you're going to implement the year-to-year process... because then after this year it literally doesn't matter who started with the top pick; it becomes independent entirely of previous season results.
  • 0

#17
DocMilo

DocMilo

    Tequila Sunriser

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tukwila, WA

It's not about who *I* get. If the bottom team gets the best non-kept player AND the best prospect every year... that's a LOT of compensatory talent for being last at the expense of mid-level teams. If that team gets Strasberg AND Heyward, and trades one of them away... they still get the huge amount of extra talent for free, just in a different form.

And a lottery - while an interesting idea, on that still adds another layer of complexity to the process every year - wouldn't address my personal concern about stacking in favor of the bottom 5 teams. Not unless you included all 14 'non-playoff' teams in the lottery and drew 3 for the top 3 picks. It's just not worth doing something like that for one year, if you're going to implement the year-to-year process... because then after this year it literally doesn't matter who started with the top pick; it becomes independent entirely of previous season results.

I didn't say it's about who *You* get, I said if you want some of the top talent, trade for it. If "that team" gets Strasberg AND Heyward and trades one of them away (perhaps to you) or not, they should be improved. If "they" get Strasberg and trade the waiver pick, they should be improved.

Lotto or no lotto, I don't care. Put the waivers in favor of the bottom teams so they can compete. Bottom 3 or 5 in reverse order will mean one team doesn't get the best of both worlds but still have access to quality talent to improve.

I don't know what you have against getting more talent in the hands of the bottom teams.

Can someone besides KC tell me I'm crazy or not? Anyone else here opposed to getting the bottom teams more talent?
  • 0

#18
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
Actually... I'd really like to see someone else weigh in too. I may be strongly opposite Doc's views here, but I'm also getting a little bored. He and are are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this issue any time soon, and while a few people are voting (thanks, guys!), very few interject even as much as a comment or two. Without more input, Doc and I may enjoy trying to reach an unlikely consensus... but the overall discussion just doesn't go anywhere.

I'd really like to see the league get involved with this conversation, change the vote to the one the most people want (if this isn't it), and then actually resolve it. As things stand, I'm beginning to think the real problem is that a 2/3 majority is required for rule changes (or possibly that non-votes count as no-votes)... making it too easy to not get involved. Or maybe we should have all voteable issues spelled out at the beginning of the offseason, let debate commence during the offseason, and then require people to vote on these issues when they rejoin the league.
  • 0

#19
Idahomariner

Idahomariner
  • Line Drive Boosters
  • 950 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thousand Oaks, CA
Agreed with what KC said, we need more people to vote.

As for providing feedback, I imagine many people have a similar feel to me on subjects like this. This is a non-paid (albeit competitive) fantasy league, so I dont have strong opinions one way or another. I want things to be fair and for everyone to have fun, but I dont want to go out finding ways to punish managers for being active and finding small ways to improve their team (during the season and the offseason). So I read the arguments and simply vote based on which way I am leaning.

What I would like to see is everyone at least casting a vote and then we can work from there.
  • 0

#20
CrustyJuggler

CrustyJuggler
  • Members
  • 2,256 posts

I agree with IM's statement, CJ. If you guys think there's a problem with the current system's ordering of talent, then this is at least a step in the right direction for you. I imagine you'd have to pass something like this before some of us would even consider giving the top (powerful) waiver positions to the lower-end teams along with the top first-round picks... because no-one's previously complained about the current system being unbalanced in the 5 years we've run this league. Isn't it better to give the picks away at random rather than to give them to the top teams? And then you can support that, even if it doesn't go as far as you'd like in this step.

After all, under this proposal... the randomness is just the initial state for the system. After this season starts, people have more direct control over when their waiver pick will become the best... they can choose to spend it this year, or save it for future years.


I like making waivers more important but I don't like the upper teams having equal opportunity at these important waivers (if that makes any sense). Which is what the random draw does. I see the top teams having a guaranteed watered-down waiver as the lesser of two evils I guess.

Now if there was any way to give the basement teams a better shot at getting a high waiver position, I'd be all for the change. Maybe you could work out an NBA lottery system where the crumby teams have better odds at landing that top waiver? Idunno.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users